Plans for potential Iraq war

[Tiberius]

I have read in the papers recently that in the event of military conflict with Iraq the primary plan being bandied about is one in which Iraq's forces outside of Baghdad would be blitzed as quickly as possible, but with only a "contingency plan" for going into Baghdad. The theory is that going in to Baghdad would become unnecessary do to rebellion or coup overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
It seems to me that this plan would probably lead to an incredible debacle, casting us as the worst possible villains. In this scenario Saddam essentially holds the entire city hostage. His troops are posted throughout in Mosques and other buildings with plenty of civilian occupants to use as human shields. American commanders have not got the wherewithal to handle this type of situation. If we attack we slaughter civilians by the thousands (or Iraqi troops kill them if we don't get enough to look bad). If we don't storm the city, a stalemate ensues in which we have to feed the populace ( and therefor Saddam's soldiers), and the situation spirals downwards politically.
I hope that when we go in it is feasible to, in conjunction with the armored spearheads and marine landings to secure Basrah, that some kind of airborne/ airmobile operation is conducted to go straight into Baghdad environs and neutralize Saddam's local troops to prevent this situation from evolving. Hopefully the public plan is a ruse or bluff to put them off guard and allow easier immediate access to Baghdad.

 

[Chuck?]

The key for success would be for most of the Iraqi civilian population to turn on Saddam quickly. This in turn would cause a good deal of the Iraqi Army to quit the war like in Gulf War I. Only a few elite units would remain loyal and these could be taken out easily.

However if the population supports Saddam against the American invaders than it could be a long conflict with many casualities. Many thousands of US troops would be tied down in MP duty and trying to keep order among the population. Cities would be very dangerous places to enter.

So the key is to get the population on our side right at the beginning. How can this be done?

1.) Target the Iraqi leadership. This would include Saddam, his main lieutenants, and Generals in the Iraqi Army. Once a dictator losses the ability to dicate they become irrelevant. With the top leadership out of the picture most Iraqis are going to start fearing the American Army more than the Iraqi Army.

2.) Destroy Command and Control. By getting ride of as many radio, TV, telecommunication, and digital communication installations as early as possible, the ability of Saddam to control his country is greatly limited. Without direction from the high command I would expect many in the Iraqi Army to quit the fight without much prodding.

3.) Get the propaganda machine rolling. Once communication is limited between the Iraqi leadership and the rest of the country it becomes time to fill the void. Let the Iraqi people know the war isn't directed towards them. Provide food, water, medicine, and other needed supplies.

4.) Enlist local support. Assistance from Iraqi leaders will be needed to convice much of the domestic population to not oppose the invasion. This will help legitimize the propaganda efforts and provide a good base of support for pacifying the country.

 

[Deltapooh]

Speed is critical to success. I can't emphasize that enough. We must take Iraq. As Chuck stated, we must cut Saddam off from his troops and people in hours, not days. And we must defeat the Iraqi Army in days, not weeks. Time will give the Iraqis the opportunity to adjust their plans, use BC weapons, and just think. Iraqi commanders should die and be captured still trying to figure out what the hell is happening.

My nightmare scenario doesn't involve chemical weapons. Saddam might sacrifice Baghdad to kill American troops. He suckers 80,000 to 100,000 soldiers into urban combat. Then Iraqi commandos blow damns near the city. The loss of life would be enormous. Securing damns up stream from Baghdad are imperative.

Map of Baghdad

http://www.reliefweb.int/w/map.nsf/wByCLatest/B993876EBA1FB4E7852569ED0051F6CB?Opendocument

The employment of non-combatants as a military tool is a well-known, and proven strategy. In 1940, German warplanes would attack highways packed with civilians to steer them onto routes being used by Allied forces. Soon the mass of non-combatants created a major obstable severely limiting the movement of military forces.

Saddam will likely push the responsibility of supporting non-combatants on Coalition forces. We will have to feed them and provide shelter. Commanders must be prepared for this. Food, water, and shelter should be deployed quickly to ensure pressure on military supplies is not great.

Americans must come to grip with urban combat. While soldiers should try to avoid non-combatant casualties and unnecessary collateral damage, it might prove impossible. Battles in cities like Baghdad and Basra could be very combat intensive. Soldiers will have to bypass boobytrapped doors by blowing holes in walls, reduce strongpoints to rubble, etc.

I think we'd better prepare for alot of criticism for invading Iraq. If Saddam elects to fight in the city, we should be the only side left to blame for the damage and fatalities. The American people must be prepared to accept everything from condemnation to sanctions. Terrorism on a large scale is also likely. The public must purge those images of "clean" warfare from their minds. "The Highway of Death" will look like a tragic traffic accident compared the death and destruction that will occur during intense urban combat.

Unfortunately, soldiers might find themselves being blamed for the death of innocent men, women, and children. Like in Vietnam, some could be stupid enough to spit on our returning soldiers. Many still don't realize freedom is not free. Soldiers fighting in Iraq will descend into hell to protect our democracy. It's impossible for them to emerge clean. They will just be better than Saddam on the moral level. At least our soldiers will try to avoid civilian casualties.

Again, if the American people are not prepared to accept the horrors of total war, they should stand up now. We should not place unacceptable restraints on soldiers to give us peace of mind. The public must accept that war is man at his worst. We're gonna win the battle. Unfortunately, the intensive combat might convince many the war was far from a success.

 

[Marko]

Lets hope it doesn' t get that far eh ? Playing wargames is one thing, but attacking a country for possessing weapons of mass destruction is another. Saddam is no credible threat to the people of America; or Europe at that; and never has been. Israel possesses weapons of mass destruction, as does Iran, North Korea, UK, France, China, South Africa (?) and possible others. There is not a monopoly on these type of weapons. There always remains a possibility that certain weapons could be passed on to third parties. However, as the incidents in Japan several years ago show - if you want them you will get them from somewhere. If weapons passed from Saddam were used by terrorists against the US or any other nation, then a massive retalitatory strike would be morally justified - as would invasion. Another reason for this pressure on Iraq is the premise of supporting terrorism. Now can anyone honestly say that their own country is not guilty of the same offence ?